Originally Posted By MomofPrincess >>It's much better that her parents can take care of her for as long as possible, not to mention it will be easier to take care of her by whomever does so once her parents are too old.<< I totally agree.
Originally Posted By debtee ohhh I didn't mean to point that at you Mele, I just know how some are on here is all. I might as well jump into the fire and give my thoughts. Her parents love her they have taken care of her all this time and know their own daughter and her needs best. They did not abandon her at birth they love her and obviously thought long and hard about this decision. Just because the media wagon has now jumped on this does not make their decision light-weight. I believe everyone is put on this earth for a purpose and so is this little girl. I'm sure she does realise more things then people give her credit for but at 9 years old she doesn't know what it's like to be an adult with an adult body so she will never miss it. I wish the family well and hope they will not become a victim of everyone else's opinions!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo But the issue here folks is where do you draw the line. I have worked in the Social Sector in various guises for nearly 20 years, either as a volunteer, student, carer, social worker and professional. With it comes a very ugly history that many may not be aware of. This sadly is a step back towards where we once were (which perhaps the Hitler jibe was uncalled for, but actually that was common practice up to the 50's in numerous countries around the globe (and only recently stopped in Eastern Europe - with china reportedly carrying on such practices). We are not talking about braces here folks. We are talking about a procedure that could have killed her - for what? To make it easier for the parents! It is not an easy decision, for sure, but I do not think I would ever risk the lives of my children in the potential that it may make taking care of them easier. NO WAY. But I might risk their lives if by taking no action could kill them, or if there were a chance that this would make them better. This is not the same ballpark. The ethics here are questionable. And you have to ask yourself, what's next? Where do we draw the line?
Originally Posted By debtee ^ I do understand what you are saying Dave and in some aspects I agree with you. However the "drawing the line" arguement can be used for anything and everything, nothing would ever get done if you take that angle!
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka There are definitely ethical questions with this. I just had a hysterectomy this summer...it IS surgery and every surgery has risks but it's one of the most commonly performed surgeries. Again, every surgery has risks but they've come a HUGE way with this. I was 34 at the time, overweight and was badly anemic for years beforehand and it was a breeze. (And I always do badly during surgeries.) Because of my own horrible experience...I honestly feel that if a woman isn't going to have children, she shouldn't have to deal with menstruation at all. I can't imagine the nightmare of having to take care of a menstruating patient. I am much more aghast by parents who allow their teenage daughters to get breast enlargements or nose jobs, etc. Sure these parents did something to make their job easier but let's look at the job they're faced with doing...24 hour care for the rest of their lives. There are times when I think I might have to live with my son forever and it scares me but requires no physical labor for me.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <ohhh I didn't mean to point that at you Mele> And my post at the beginning to her was meant as a joke (sorry).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I hear what you are saying Mele, but the risks of surgery are hugely complex when profound multiple disabilities are concerned. Everyone is entitled to their views, I can respect that. And this family would not have made their decision lightly, again my heart really does go out to them (I must admit, I did actually cry when I read the story). But having had the honour of working with "vegetables" and gotten to know them as people, I flipped to hear of them as a burden on the economy. Maybe I've lived in a social economy for too long, but my temper did burst.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>I don't think it is fair to sit in judgement of these parents. They live with the reality of it every day<< I agree with that. It just breaks my heart to hear of children with disabilities like this. I think it would be one of the hardest things to deal with as a parent. I'm not really sure what I think about this - I don't think I can say what I would do because I haven't been there. But I'm sure the parents are just trying to do what they think is best. If their child is easier to care for, she's more likely to get the best care possible.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Persistent vegetative state doesn't mean *permanent*." this is. "And not being able to eat doesn't make her any less of a human being than you or me." Not alone, no. Combined with the rest of it, she's in a vegetative state, and it's not going to get better. "Should I have made the decision to starve him to death, jonvn, because he was in a persistent vegatitive state, unable to eat?" That was up to you. Every case is different.
Originally Posted By jonvn "To make it easier for the parents!" Which in turn makes it easier for the child. It's a little too easy to point a finger and say this is wrong. I've had to pull the plug on a few relatives. It's not the easiest thing to do, but you need to do the right thing. If this is what they think will be the best for this kid, then it most likely is. For the person who said people are put on Earth for a reason (an idea I don't agree with) then maybe her reason is to show other people that what was done to her was the right thing under the circumstances.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley Gee, it must be such a burden to be so perfect that one can be so judgmental.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<But the issue here folks is where do you draw the line.>> Well, that's the big question, isn't it? Every elective surgury has its risks and its benefits. Every difficult medical decision has its pros and cons. [And that was what I was trying to get at with my comments about the media and certain "medical ethicists" attempting to make this case look as if there were only one way to view it.] Dave, I SO respect your professional experience and knowledge. And, personally, I SO respect your compassionate point of view. But my "braces" example wasn't a flip comment. Braces is perhaps the least invasive elective procedure we force upon our children. It's painful for them, and it carries no medical benefit. It has a completely cosmetic benefit. Is wrong for parents to make this decision for their children? There are many people who argue that childhood innoculations are painful, unnessary, and potentially harmful. (They is evidence that they ARE potentially harmful.) And so they lobby against having their own kids innoculated, despite the evidence that the "greater good" is to have all kids vaccinated. Should they be allowed to subject their kids to the posibility of disabling or fatal illnesses -- all for the sake of avoiding a miniscule chance of a bad reaction to the vaccine? Similarly, there is plenty of evidence that circumcision prevents males (as a group) from disease. There is also plenty of evidence that circumcision deforms a small percentage of the males upon whom it is performed. Who's the evil parent here? The one who decides to go for the statistical health benifit? Or the one who subjects the kid to a potential surgery-gone-wrong? There's a low-key, almost secret, program at the huge academic medical center in my town in which mentally impaired individuals are sterilized as soon as or before they reach the age of the ability to reproduce. Are the physicians who participate in this program and the parents who make the decision to sterilize their kids evil? Certainly there are potential major risks with every surgery performed. "Stunting a child's growth" [definitely a loaded term] is certainly an unusual surgery. But I'm not convinced that it's any more risky or selfish than a number of other procedures that are considered common, normal, and/or acceptable.
Originally Posted By DlandJB (But yes, "pillow angel" is a weird nickname.)>> Weird to us because we are only hearing it now and she's not a baby physically anymore -- but she has been their "pillow angel" since she was tiny. I'm sure the nickname is almost as old as she is. I'm not sure what jonvn is proposing...are you saying they shouldn't feed her? She isn't in a coma. She is alert and responsive. They have two choices -- institutionalize her, or care for her. They are choosing to care for her. That takes guts in my opinion.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 jonvn, once again you frustrate me. I truly value your point of view. You and I think alike on a number of issues. And when we don't, I like to read your comments and be challenged. I generally respect your perspective. But on this thread, you've summarily dismissed rational arguments. You've referred to the child as "vegetative," which is obviously not accurate. Karen Quinlan was vegitative; this child is not. You created a defensive straw man argument when someone used Hitler's eugenics program as a legitimate example of a slippery slope argument. Be yourself. State your opinion, even if it's extreme and unpopular. I want to hear it. But don't misstate facts, and don't make character assasinations where they're not warranted.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm not sure what jonvn is proposing...are you saying they shouldn't feed her?" You're probably confused because I'm not proposing anything. The only thing I said was that she should have been aborted, and otherwise, the child is a vegetable, so it really doesn't matter that she gets her growth curtailed. She has no quality of life to spare. I said it is up to the people who are taking care of the kid, and we should not be laying blame. I've had to pull the plug on relatives. You do what you think is best for everyone. Every situation is different. Everything else is stuff other people have said I said. I never said to not feed her. I did mention whether or not she can even feed herself, as an indicator as to how bad off she is. "But on this thread, you've summarily dismissed rational arguments." Regarding what? I have to be missing something here. I just read over my posts. I don't quite see where this is quite coming from. "You created a defensive straw man argument when someone used Hitler's eugenics program as a legitimate example of a slippery slope argument." I never said to kill her. I don't even know where that is coming from. She will become a burden to the state once the parents are gone, if she lives. I have said that. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with what the parents did, period. They are probably doing what they think is best, and it is not going to affect the quality of her life in any way, because she is in a nearly vegetative state. If they had known about it before the birth, I would have hoped they would have aborted the fetus. If they did know and still went ahead with the child, they would have been vile and evil people. But since they didn't, it is just an unfortunate tragedy and they are going to have to wait around until the person dies. Since it may be years, they might as well make it as easy as possible on everyone. And this also makes it easier if the child is raped by an orderly, which happens a lot, and then ends up pregnant. That's no longer a concern. Summing up: No proposals. I don't blame the parents, provided they didn't know before birth, and it's not going to affect the kid's life negatively, and it will make it easier to take care of the person going forward. Why is this a problem?
Originally Posted By DlandJB You're probably confused because I'm not proposing anything. The only thing I said was that she should have been aborted, and otherwise, the child is a vegetable, so it really doesn't matter that she gets her growth curtailed. She has no quality of life to spare.>> The disorder didn't become known until after she was born. By all accounts she was to have been a healthy baby. Thanks for clarifying the rest.
